Release date: February 2010

There are two key elements that put this logo in this round-up. The first is that it was able to escape the typical antics associated with university redesigns where alumni and students get all offended and someone asks how come the students in the art program didn't design the logo for free. Second, where they could have used Trajan, they used Hoefler & Frere-Jones' Requiem. Royal!

Release date: June 2010

It's easy to get away with cool stuff when it comes to über local co-op breweries. So if you are indeed getting away with it, make it count and make it so cool that all you want to do is put down that mouse, turn off the computer and head for a beer.

Release date: March 2010

For the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation "amplifying" is a key word and this lovely, simple icon translates it to an icon in a bold, vibrant, and memorable way. Pretty colors and pretty typography help make it a stand-out in the non-profit category of this year's crop.

Designed by: In-house

Release date: October 2010

Left behind as the multitudes flocked to Facebook and Twitter, Myspace is trying to claw its way back to relevance as we launch into the second decade of the twenty-first century and they are doing it with a rather unconventional identity which deserves to be applauded. While there are still holes to fill (pun!) the concept shows promise… it mostly depends on whether people care about Myspace at all. If they don't that blank space might end up being too poignant for its own good.

Release date: October 2010

At the intersection of the International Typographic Style and The Flinstones — or not — lies the new identity for the San Diego Zoo, which encompasses the zoo itself (one of the largest in the world), the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, and San Diego Zoo's Institute for Conservation Research. With this redesign they all now share a unique, playful identity despite being three relatively disparate entities.

Release date: July 2010

Like in the Worst category, a Saul Bass logo gets the "Before" treatment, except that instead of getting the axe, it went under the scalpel and shears for a few modernifications. The much debated bang was a nice addition if you ask me and the perkier noses gave it a more youthful look. But the "trefoil" icon was only part of a larger revitalization of the brand that resulted in a vibrant and playful array of identity elements.

Designed by: In-house

Release date: November 2010

In terms of visual puns, this was the best of the year — although it was probably the only of the year. Despite some commenters asking if this was supposed to be read as CÑÑ, or questioning the grammatical correctness of it as an acronym, or some other party-pooping minutia, this is a great concept with a swift execution that doesn't pander to the lowest common deñomiñator.

Release date: August 2010

And in terms of flawless execution, this was the best of the year. Although crests are not the most popular visual device in our industry this one got almost perfect marks for being expertly crafted and with a proper inverse version of the original that looks so hot against dark backgrounds. Even the use of Gotham, which typically goes crucified, was well received.

Release date: December 2010

While some people were expecting the equivalent of a Gallagher watermelon smash in the Comedy Central redesign what we got instead was the Louis CK equivalent: considerate funny, if you will. Through a very simple device that mocks and co-opts the copyright symbol, Comedy Central will be deploying a very lively on-air graphics package in 2011. It's no LOL, but that's what John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Cartman are for.

Release date: July 2010

Like the 11th spot in the Best category, this identity is for a relatively small enterprise, allowing for a bit more exploration. (Both of these entries also happen to be by Austin designers for Austin companies — make of that what you will). For JBG, a range of texturally delicious wood blocks serve as the source material to create an infinite range of applications that all share the same DNA.

Release date: July 2010

As a general rule, mass consumer products don't fare very well on Brand New, since they are generally gaudy explosions of shadows, bevels, and fake droplets of water to signify freshness. So it was rather surprising to see the comprehensive identity and packaging for Miller High Life be good. Actually: very, really good. The redesign resulted in a sophisticated, bold, crisp, and fun look for all the various beer options and it got high marks all around. The beer ain't that great, but at least it looks great.

Release date: September 2010

Even though the logo didn't get high marks and plenty of commenters went WTF about what the icon stood for, the overall identity represents one of the most drastic redesigns all year and in a category — global corporations — that is notoriously conservative and difficult to create something beyond a wordmark set in a sans serif and colored blue. The old logo was pathetic, even if some "liked" it. It had to go. And in its place we got an extremely refreshing and vibrant identity that adapts so nicely to dozens of different communication materials. Not only does Wolff Olins deserve credit for executing this but PwC for adopting and implementing it.

Here’s a paper that will provoke a wave of denial in type nerds everywhere. Short version: setting information in hard-to-read fonts, including Comic Sans Italic, led to better retention amongst research subjects because of “disfluency”. When you have to work harder to read it, you remember it better.

Abstract: Previous research has shown that disfluency – the subjective experience of difficulty associated with cognitive operations – leads to deeper processing. Two studies explore the extent to which this deeper processing engendered by disfluency interventions can lead to improved memory performance. Study 1 found that information in hard-to-read fonts was better remembered than easier to read information in a controlled laboratory setting. Study 2 extended this finding to high school classrooms. The results suggest that superficial changes to learning materials could yield significant improvements in educational outcomes.

In the meantime, you can pry this Scala Regular from my cold, dead hands.

Stunning work by artists Robert and Shana ParkeHarrison worth checking out (link via the always great Landezine). Not a whole lot of descriptions around to place these - so just soak them in - more at the artists website. Happy New Year!

I recently watched Rachel Botsman’s TEDxSydney talk on collaborative consumption (below) and realized how little most marketers are thinking about the impact of crowds on the future of consumption. Instead, they’re focused on the impact of crowds on production (crowdsourcing! co-creation! predictive markets!).

For an in-depth overview of the landscape as Rachel defines it, I recommend her guest post on the Swiss Miss blog (or her book). In the interim, here are her three systems, which she uses as a framework for collaborative consumption:

1. Product Service Systems: Pay for the benefit, not the product (think paying for the hole, not the power drill that makes it)

Example: ZipCar

2. Redistribution Markets: Exchanges that move used goods to where there’s new need (think the stretching of product life cycles for things like DVD’s)

Example: SwapTreasures

3. Collaborative Lifestyles: People with similar interests band together (think co-working)

Example: AirB&B

If you’re in the business of selling goods or services, you should likely spend at least some time thinking about the consequences of such a trend. The following are some initial thoughts on what marketers may want to consider in a world of collaborative consumption. We’d love it to be the beginning of a dialogue on the matter, so please feel free to comment or email us with your thoughts.

Focus less on “influence” and more on “reputation.”

Marketers are obsessed with influencers in the hope they’ll help others make purchase decisions. Yet, if more people are doing business with each other, it’s the commercial reputation of a stranger, not their “influence” that becomes incredibly important. Whether marketers like it or not, these sellers are a part of the product experience (think about that bad online purchase experience you had and the impact on the oblivious product company). Perhaps then they should account for those in their target audience that are likely to be the foundation of the secondary market of their products. It may just open up an entirely new branch of propagation planning (“plan not just for those that buy your products, but for those that will eventually buy your products from them”). The economics just got trickier, but finding a way to make money in secondary markets will be essential, and the best way to create demand is to make sure those re-selling your product are representative of the brand.

Squeeze more dollars out of early adopters

The true value of early adopters is always hard to determine for a brand. However, as collaborative consumption takes off, they’ll become more important across a range of product categories. In those instances that marketers simply cannot monetize re-sale markets (what brands can feasibly make money from people buying each other’s used goods on Craigslist?), they’ll have to find a way to sell more to the same people, even when those people aren’t brand loyal. Those that buy products upon release may need to be catered to in unprecedented ways. Brands could feasibly help them re-sell, conceding the cannibalization such an effort could have on mass audience sales. In fact, it may be in some brand’s best interest to speed up the cycle between sales to an elite few. It’s not dissimilar to how content publishers think about participation platforms and those very elite community members that are incredibly valuable.

Help people loan to help yourself sell

As strangers loan goods to one another, they’re may be an opportunity for brands to differentiate themselves in that regard. Imagine apps that work concurrently with products to help you monetize them when you loan them out. If I loaned my car to strangers for money, I’d prefer one that helps me monitor how much gas that stranger actually cost me in today’s dollars. Or if I lent expensive products like technology, I’d pay a bit more for those that could be located via GPS like the MobileMe “Find My iPhone” feature to deter theft. Such features would be an investment because they would help me monetize my product purchase via collaborative consumption channels, and help such products pay for themselves.

Become an active participant in passion areas

We’ve been discussing how brands need to embrace social media flings, in which they have brief but meaningful relationships with consumers. Brands can bond with people over a shared passion (if the brand can credibly contribute to the dialogue). Rachel’s “collaborative lifestyles” system is full of potential for such flings. If a site like Landshare connects growers with those who have land, the entire community feels ripe (sorry, couldn’t help it) for relevant brands to play a role. Imagine a company like DeWit gardening tools facilitating connections in such a community. Not only does that potentially grow business (ok, I’ll stop), but it also offers a “boring” product category a chance to be human and engage people on a topic they’re passionate about. Social media flings aren’t just for the Red Bulls and Nikes of the world. They can happen in small, but highly passionate communities—even if those communities are circumventing buying more of the brand’s product by sharing. Regardless of flings, passionate communities are doors to social engagement of any kind for a brand, and collaborative consumption may just be a master key.

We’re huge believers in collaboration (it’s perhaps the future of agency business). If consumers are going to collaborate anyway, the bigger impact of crowds on marketer business may be in how products are bought and used, rather than how they’re made or developed (or the growing space in between led by Groupon). Given how many brands are struggling to benefit from crowds, the fact that consumers have taken matters into their own hands (of course) may be a windfall. The economics of how brands make money will certainly become more complicated, but collaborative consumption actually makes things simpler for marketers on some levels. They can stop dealing with crowd dynamics in the production process and instead focus on understanding how crowds change what they know quite well: how they’re products are actually used and valued.